First and foremost, the NCLS's recommendations for a National Levee Safety Program have a primary goal of
increasing public safety by reducing the risks of catastrophic flooding associated with levees.

There is no single activity that will solve this problem, which has been decades in the making. The fix will not be
immediate; it took decades for the present situation to evolve to its critical state, and it will take us many years
to significantly improve levee safety. It will require a combination of technical solutions, behavior changes, and
policy/program alignment by owners/operators, individuals, and governments at all levels. A concerted effort to
understand and share responsibility for levee safety is the crux of the NCLS's recommendations. The NCLS has
made 20 specific recommendations that fall into three main categories:

Comprehensive and Consistent National Leadership is needed and should be provided through the creation
of a National Levee Safety Commission that will develop a National Levee Safety Program. The Commission
will be charged with understanding and communicating risks associated with levees, developing national
levee safety standards, facilitating important research, and developing and overseeing participating state
and tribal programs.

Strong Levee Safety Programs in All States is the cornerstone of an effective National Levee Safety
Program, following a consistent set of safety standards and protocols, and providing assistance and
oversight to local community efforts and levee owners/operators.

Alignment of Existing Federal Programs is crucial in order that investments in our nation's levees and
programs with investment in leveed areas are effective. All federal programs should align with the same
goals of risk reduction, developing resilient and reliable levees, and protecting human life and property.

11. What are the benefits of a National Levee Safety Program? How much will a National Levee
Safety Program cost?

In their report, the NCLS concluded that the benefits of a National Levee Safety Program are substantial.
Reducing the potential for loss of life and human suffering alone warrants the cost of the program. The
recommendations also are a good financial investment by significantly reducing flood damages to the public and
private sectors and reducing overall disaster relief costs. Based on data from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
the State of California, and the National Flood Insurance Program, it is reasonable to estimate that damages
from levee failure or breaches reach more than $5 billion annually.

The NCLS made preliminary estimates of costs for all recommendations within the Report to Congress. They
estimated that to implement its recommendations for a comprehensive and effective National Levee Safety
Program, the federal share would be $878 million annually for the first five years of the program, and $360
million dollars annually in nonfederal cost share. The bulk of that federal investment ($600 million) would be in
the proposed Levee Rehabilitation, Improvement, and Flood Mitigation Fund. In evaluating these estimates, one
must remember that we do not yet know the magnitude of the problem because we do not have a complete
inventory and inspection of the nation's levees.

12. Why did the NCLS recommend a new bureaucracy/agency? Why not house the National Levee
Safety Program in either USACE or FEMA?

Currently, responsibility for levee safety is assigned in an often uncoordinated and incomplete manner,
distributed across all levels of government, and housed in different agencies. Aligning federal agencies and
working with states and local governments will require a level of independence from any one agency to be
effective. In the report, the NCLS highlighted the following three guiding principles as essential and believes an
independent federal agency with strong guidance by state, tribal, and local governments and the private sector
is the ideal model:

Independence to address levee safety holistically, unconstrained by the momentum and priorities of
existing programs, with the ability to make politically challenging decisions when necessary.

Leadership for significant horizontal integration of effort across federal agencies and alignment of their
programs, with vertical integration to achieve balanced participation at all levels of government.

While the NCLS strongly believes that an independent agency is preferable, they did consider the option of
embedding the National Levee Safety Program in a single existing federal agency, such as the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The NCLS determined that no
existing agency alone has the full suite of expertise needed in the key areas of: 1) levee engineering; 2) risk
mitigation in leveed areas; and 3) incentive and financial administration. The NCLS was also concerned that
housing a national program in an existing agency would further stretch the resources of these agencies and
would pose challenges to the chosen agency in coordinating alignment of other federal programs that they
would be unlikely to overcome.

13. Why did the NCLS recommend including canals in the National Levee Safety Program?

The NCLS strongly believes that structures along canals "that constrain water flows and are subject to more
frequent water loadings but that do not constitute a barrier across a watercourse" should be included in the

National Levee Safety Program, as they pose many of the same risks as levees and can have a direct impact on
public safety.

A national inventory of all levees is the first step in helping us understand the extent of the problem. Currently,
there is no complete inventory of all the nation's levees. We know from an inventory of levees participating in
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) programs that there are over 2,000 USACE levee systems, totaling over
13,000 miles of levees — but the NCLS has estimated that there may be as many as 100,000 miles of levees
across the nation based on information from USACE, the State of California, and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. It is important that we know what levees are in the public and private inventory. We
then can assess the reliability of these levees, characteristics of the population and property in the leveed areas,
and prioritize where funds need to be spent first to protect human lives and critical infrastructure.

There are no national engineering standards for levee design, construction, operations, or maintenance; and various federal, state, and local agencies use different criteria. For example, the USACE has engineering policies, procedures, standards, and criteria for levees, but those standards only apply to levees that are enrolled in its programs; the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation maintains its own set of standards related to levees in its programs.

16. How is the NCLS addressing concerns about environmental protection and permitting?

One of the NCLS's recommendations is to develop and implement measures to more closely harmonize levee
safety activities with environmental restoration and protection requirements. Some of the questions the
Committee believes are essential to consider include:

Can operations and maintenance practices necessary to maintaining the levee be improved to mitigate or
reduce negative impacts on the natural environment or ecosystem without compromising public safety?

Can levees or flood risk mitigation projects, including operations and maintenance activities, be designed
or modified to reduce negative environmental impacts — or even to enhance or restore the environment?

Can streamlining permitting requirements related to levee operations, maintenance, and emergency
repairs, and reducing the time required to obtain those permits, improve both the natural environment
and public safety, increasing efficiency without shortcutting either the environment or public safety?

The NCLS is recommending examining opportunities to ensure that levee operations can be conducted in a
manner respectful of the environment and protecting public safety. They have recommended that a standing
Advisory Committee on Environment & Safety be established to provide advice on the coordination of
environmental and safety concerns related to levee operations and maintenance, removal, rehabilitation, and
new levee projects.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that liability concerns in government and industry may impede development and
implementation of strong state levee safety programs throughout the nation. Concern also is growing in the
engineering community and among levee districts, owners, and operators regarding potential liability that may
be incurred through performance of levee services. These services include certification of data for National
Flood Insurance Program accreditation purposes, as well as levee design, construction, and maintenance
services. Informal surveys suggest that at least some engineering firms are declining to perform levee work, in
part out of liability concerns. The NCLS is encouraging research to identify the current state of the law as it
applies to liability. Research should also explore possible measures to prevent liability concerns from hindering
development of robust levee safety programs.

18. Why are state programs recommended as part of the federal National Levee Safety Program?

Strong levee safety programs at the state and local level are a crucial component of an effective national
program. The NCLS believes that states are best positioned to organize, implement, and oversee levee safety
programs, as they have the combination of necessary legal authorities, statewide reach, and existing
relationships with local governments to be successful. It is the intent of the NCLS's recommendations that states
could allow for some regional and state variation and tailoring in programs to meet local needs and conditions
while meeting national standards and objectives, making the effort more effective. Finally, states already are
playing similar roles with regard to other infrastructure programs such as dam safety, water and wastewater
treatment, etc.

Further, the NCLS understands that states cannot implement this program alone, nor can it be an unfunded
mandate, and so designed an approach that encourages states by providing start-up grant funding for states to
develop levee safety programs, as well as technical assistance to help develop the myriad of technical expertise
needed (e.g., engineering specialization, risk communication, etc.) at all levels of the state. As the state
programs mature, it is anticipated that further incentives, through preference in other federal programs, will be
afforded to states that implement strong levee safety programs, and conversely disincentives established for
states that take little or no action to address their shared responsibility for levee safety.

State representatives on the NCLS have played a key role in developing these recommendations. The NCLS will
involve the states more heavily in the specific design of participating levee safety programs through expanded
stakeholder involvement efforts.

Flood insurance is one of the most effective ways to limit financial damages in the case of flooding and speed
recovery of flood-damaged communities. However, despite the fact that the 1% annual chance flood standard
used by the National Flood Insurance Program is not a safety standard, the exemption from flood insurance
requirements have led many individuals and communities in leveed areas to mistakenly believe that they do not
need flood insurance, and that they are protected from all flooding by that levee.

The NCLS has recommended that every structure in a leveed area should have flood insurance, and that the
insurance premiums should be risk-based. That is, the insurance premiums would be developed to reflect the
flood risks of living behind a levee and considering the levee's level of flood protection. The NCLS's
recommendations aim at increasing the understanding that living behind even well-engineered levees has some
risk. Because the recommendation is for risk-based premiums, it will help incentivize local communities to
maintain reliable levees, good evacuation programs, flood proofing, etc., as a way to lower premiums for their
constituents in leveed areas.

Without some significant regulatory changes by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), existing
mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements for the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) mandated
by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1873 and National Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1894 would not
achieve the Committee's goal of risk-based flood insurance for all structures in leveed areas. However, the NFIP
Reform process currently underway provides an opportunity for FEMA to implement this recommendation, and
the Committee plans to be engaged throughout the process.

Depending on the outcomes of the NFIP Reform process, additional mechanisms may necessary in order to meet
the objective of flood insurance for all structures in leveed areas, although the Committee has not explored
other federal, nonfederal, or private sector approaches to promote or require flood insurance in leveed areas.

It is important to note that no levee provides full protection from flooding — even the best flood-control system or structure cannot completely eliminate the risk of flooding. Levees are designed to provide a specific level of protection, and larger flood events can cause them to be overtopped or fail. Levees also decay and deteriorate
over time. Regular maintenance and periodic upgrades are needed to ensure that they retain their level of
protection and continue to perform to their design. Maintenance can become a serious challenge as a levee
system gets older. When levees do fail, they fail catastrophically — the damage may be more significant than if
the levee wasn't present.

20. Why did the NCLS not go further into more floodplain management recommendations?

The NCLS's recommendations are prefaced by recognition of the need for a broader national flood risk
management approach. The legislation creating the NCLS limited its charge to developing recommendations for
a National Levee Safety Program. It is hoped that by opening this dialogue on levee safety, the larger issue of floodplain management also will be considered and addressed.

Lupines on a Sacramento River levee in Sacramento, California.

ESSAYONS

Our Mission

The mission of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is to deliver vital public and military engineering services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our nation’s security, energize the economy and reduce risks from disasters.

About the Headquarters

The official public website of Headquarters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers